View Single Post
  #2112  
Old 11-14-2017, 09:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not a "hunch", nor a "feeling", Fish. Just logic.
Iīm sorry, Gareth, but the kind of "logic" you are employing here is nothing but a hunch.

When I say that you canot possibly know where the killer lived, that is a fact.

You can guess, but guessing is going by...correct, hunches!

So what we end up with is you bitterly complaining about how I am not objective, and then you present your guesswork as totally objective and based on non-passionate thinking...?

Thatīs quite rich, you know.

And that is even before we look at how you have blatantly stated that the torso killer was not an eviscerator, GUESSING that he had other reasons for taking out the uterus, heart and lungs from Liz Jacksons body.

It is not about any non-passionate thinking at all, Gareth. It is about VERY passionate hobbyhorses, unsubstantiable such beasts even.

If we look at my convictions, they are solidly grounded in named pieces of evidence, dovetailing one by one between the series.

THAT is non-passionate reasoning. It is grounded on facts.

Your reasoning is instead grounded on guesswork. You think you know that most dismemberers dump bodies in close proximity to their homes, and so it becomes a bear certainty that the torso killer did. And all the while, you have not presented a scintilla of evidence that this is so. It is nevertheless "logical" to you.

And you claim that the torso killer was not an eviscerator. Probaly based in the same sort of wishful thinking. There is certainly nothing factual at all to contradict that he was, on the other hand - it is PROVEN that he eviscerated Jackson.

And out of all of this, you want to create a picture of me being irresponsible and baised, whereas you are measured, non-passionate and logical.

That suggestion just crash-landed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote